]]>By: Rollin Shttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-18558
Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:35:49 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-18558I will try to explain why an amputee cannot receive the gift of a new limb. To understand why God does not grant this request, we must understand some things about God and about the other heavenly beings who either serve Him now or did before the fall. God is, amoung all those omni characteritics, completely fair and totally honorable.
So let’s go back to the time before man. Satan and the angels in alliance with him got all uppity and God cast them down from Heaven. They now inhabit the Earth and they command still great knowledge and power but only a fraction of what they once had. So at this point you must take note of the main character trait of Satan that being he is a legalist and a nit-picker constantly bringing forth arguments.
God does not at this point have to prove he was right to withold forgiveness to Satan for his treasoness acts but He is Totally fair and honorable so he crafts an example by creating mankind and making him a little lower than the angels. His intent for man is to at some point elevate them to a position higher than the angels and Satan has a problem with that so he figures if he can interfere with the process he can make a case for reinstatement because God loves man so much He will not let us go. But God gave man two simple rules and with a little shove from Satan man screws up. Satan’s probably grinning ear to pointy ear by now but he gets a big surprise when God kicks us off of the ultimate welfare program and now He gives man more and more rules he must live by to get to Heaven and when they can’t they are detined for the abyss. So to be fair to the angels man had to pay for his sin and must still. If you know anything about Christianity then I don’t need to go into how Jesus is the solution for that problem but instead let me get back to the original point.
Statement: Man must come to God through faith. The best example of that I know of is the story of Job and the exchange between Satan and God about overly favorable treatment of this man which implies an unfairness to the angels (good and bad). The rest of the story is not important to the problem of the amputee so I will skip it. Now if it were not so that we must come to God through faith then God could have sent a bunch of magical electronic obelisks that hover around waiting for man to ask questions and give nice hi fidelity answers (no King James version needed) or He could have left some indestructible non corroding metallic Bible written in every language. Either of those would eliminate faith from the equation and that would not be fair. (oops) That is also the quandry our amputee is in because unlike the little girl who recovered from rabies and the miracle can be rationalized to be some fortunate accident there is no way to rationalize away a new limb. No human can possibly regenerate a limb and if God performed that miracle the jig would be up and God would violate His nature. (that’s not gonna happen) So in effect God beat the American military to the punch when it comes to plausible deniability.
In all things God has done He has never violated His nature. There is always more to consider than simply He could so why not or He killed all those people so He must be mean etc.
Much of what I stated above does not have a direct correlation to scriptures and most of it is inferred from other scriptures but if God is not imaginary and if God is fair to all then the logic is sound. This where “The rain falls on the just and the unjust” comes in by the way.
When it comes down to it there is another important thing I must mention. Unless the Bible is the living word of God, then it can’t be trusted and it is pointless to even discuss it. If the Bible is what it is claimed to be then the story of Christ is plain enough to bring someone to the brink of immortality and lead to the ultimate choice to believe or not to believe on faith alone and what feeble understanding of a man. Remeber those hardened hearts and Satan and his angels who lost knowledge and understanding when they fell? The only way to true understanding of scripture is through the Holy Spirit which comes through accepting Christ and there is no getting around that. So you can believe the inspired but very real logic I have expressed above (doubtful) or you can read the story of Jesus and believe and then be baptised in the Holy spirit and the scripture will be opened up to you like never before; or you can not believe and stay on the outside looking in. If you choose number two then you will never have true happiness so sin hard and have lots of fun because otherwise what’s the point of goodness?
]]>By: lil tomhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-15123
Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:03:30 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-15123anon,

I have listened to people who claim they have been to hell and back. I have heard it all and it just reeks and reeks of magical thinking and the reminder of those poor children who have been taught to believe such atrocities. these beliefs are unethical and harmful.

my original point was that religions as organizations inhibit the momentum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

now if you’re going to resort to attacking my name, well that’s just cute… I’ll refrain from twisting the facts..

okay. lets revisit your statement: “The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isnâ€™t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.”

you claim that the science is *more* motivated by a belief in god than by a disbelief in gods. on what basis can you assert that?

I assert that the scientific breakthroughs that came from religous men (who again, had little freedom of their religion) were totally in *spite* of their religion. I assert this on the basis that no science has ever been derived from biblical sources. it has never been shown that a divine being gives more “science” to believers than to non-believers. most scientists are atheist or agnostic.

“In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.”

my problem is with the first three words of this sentence.
you readily admit that belief isn’t required, yet somehow in *part* you still assert that it was god that instilled the beautiful findings of science in those few scientists who said they were god-fearing..
inal point was that religions as organizations inhibit the moment
my origum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

“this is practically offensive itâ€™s so wrong. you donâ€™t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? ”

Your ability to read is offensive. I said “normal human curiosity is all that most people require” which means belief in deities is not freakin’ ***REQUIRED*** !!! Do you know what the word even means?

Sorry, may I just cut in. I recommend you (and every other “PROUDLY ATHEIST” on this website) visit the “Insights of God” website. This is a website on true life testimonies of people who went to hell and back. Even if you do not believe such things exist, just give it a try. Just Google “Insights of God, visions of eternity”.

As for the Science facts on Christianity, I would have recommended a DVD I watched called “Incredible” about the galaxy and God’s amazing wonders compiled by Scientists. I was almost close to tears having watched it because it is so touching. I will try to find out the details for you. In the meantime, please visit the Insights of God website.

>The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isnâ€™t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

this is practically offensive it’s so wrong. you don’t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? history would show quite the reverse. You seem to forget that until quite recently it was not really an option to be an atheist. not at all. when new discoveries in science throw a wrench in the current beliefs of the faith, you can bet your life that they’ll do everything in their power to keep the truth from the masses (as we’ve seen with galileo and currently in US science classes) you also seem to ignore the fact that the majority of scientists are agnostics or atheists. hmmm. what could possibly drive them, if not an imaginary being? surely not their concern for humanity, honesty, an appetite for truth, and a decent paycheck…

>I explain it by saying belief in God isnâ€™t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. Itâ€™s obvious that such a belief isnâ€™t *required*.

more of the same…
you might as well be attempting to argue on the basis of race: “well, the majority of the world’s greatest scientists were white, so therefore white people must be endowed with the greatest intelligence.”

the reality of the situation is that many great scientists and thinkers were practicing in times when disbelief in god was simply off the table in any public sense without serious consequences.

the devout didn’t stop burning witches and heretics at the stake because they became *more* religious, rather that they adopted the reason and ethics of scientific thought.

please reread the dennett interview for a more in depth look at the implications of the fact that â€œThere are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science.” it may be hard to come to terms with, but it’s truly something to think about.

]]>By: SteveKhttp://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-15014
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:10:52 +0000http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=192#comment-15014“are you suggesting for a moment that they made their discoveries because of their belief?”

In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.

“if so youâ€™ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who donâ€™t believe in gods could make useful discoveries?”

I explain it by saying belief in God isn’t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. It’s obvious that such a belief isn’t *required*.

The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

steveK said: “Tell that to all the theists and deists who are considered to be the founders of modern science. For my own part, I have yet to be convinced of atheismâ€™s contribution to scientific understanding.”

are you suggesting for a moment that they made their discoveries because of their belief? if so you’ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who don’t believe in gods could make useful discoveries? here’s a challenge for you: give me an example of a scientific discovery that came from any religion that could not have been discovered without its aid.

I’ll post it again, because it is quite spot on and far better than I could put it. this is from Daniel Dennett:
“There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can’t consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusivelyâ€””beyond a reasonable doubt”â€”against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.”

“What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don’t. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedomâ€”we wouldn’t accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instanceâ€”shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.”